Current Genetic Medicine Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 44–53 | Cite as

Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

  • Lindsay Parham
  • Marsha Michie
  • Megan Allyse
Ethics in Genetic Medicine (L Parker, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Ethics in Genetic Medicine


Purpose of Review

In 2011, screening platforms became available in the US that detect and analyze fragments of cell-free placental DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood serum. Marketed as noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT), cfDNA screening is more accurate than previously available serum screening tests for certain aneuploidies. The combination of a noninvasive procedure, high specificity and sensitivity, and lower false positive rates for some aneuploidies (most notably Down’s syndrome) has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. New ethical, legal, and social issues arise from the increased use and expanded implementation of cfDNA in pregnancy.

Recent Findings

Recently, several professional associations have amended their guidelines on cfDNA, removing language recommending its use in only “high-risk” pregnancies in favor of making cfDNA screening an available option for women with “low-risk” pregnancies as well. At the same time, commercial cfDNA screening laboratories continue to expand the range of available test panels. As a result, the future of prenatal screening will likely include a broader range of genetic tests in a wider range of patients.


This article addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues related to the shift in guidance and expanded use of cfDNA in pregnant women, including concerns regarding routinized testing, an unmet and increasing demand for genetic counseling services, social and economic disparities in access, impact on groups living with disabling conditions, and provider liability.


cfDNA Prenatal screening NIPT Ethics Legal issues Social issues 



This paper was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (Grant R00HG006452: Michie).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors each declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(1):217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simpson JLS, Holzgreve W, Driscoll DA. Chapter 10: Genetic counseling and genetic screening. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JN, Simpson JLS, Landon ML, Galan HG, Jauniaux EJ, Driscoll DD, editors. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012b.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benn PA, Ying J, Beazoglou T, Egan JF. Estimates for the sensitivity and false-positive rates for second trimester serum screening for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 with adjustment for cross-identification and double-positive results. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21(1):46–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuckle HS, Malone FD, Wright D, Porter TF, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, et al. Contingent screening for Down syndrome—results from the faster trial. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(2):89–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simpson JLS, Richards D, Otaño L, Driscoll DA. Chapter 11: Prenatal genetic diagnosis. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JN, Simpson JLS, Landon ML, Galan HG, Jauniaux EJ, Driscoll DD, editors. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012c.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACOG COmmittee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin: invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. 00006250-200712000-00050.pdf 2007; 88:1459–67.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M, Birdir C, Nicolaides KH. Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012;206(4):322.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wang E, Struble C, Oliphant A, Song K, Nicolaides KH. Trisomy 13 detection in the first trimester of pregnancy using a chromosome-selective cell-free DNA analysis method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(1):21–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Bianchi D, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C, Das AF, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799–808. Published online. Concludes that in a general obstetrical population, prenatal testing with the use of cfDNA had significantly lower false positive rates and higher positive predictive values for detection of trisomies 21 and 18 than standard screening CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazloom AR, Džakula Ž, Oeth P, Wang H, Jensen T, Tynan J, et al. Noninvasive prenatal detection of sex chromosomal aneuploidies by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):591–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Gil M, Atanasova V, Markova D. Validation of targeted sequencing of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for non-invasive prenatal detection of aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):575–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Willems PJ, Dierickx H, Vandenakker E, Bekedam D, Segers N, Deboulle K, Vereecken A. The first 3,000 non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) with the harmony test in Belgium and the Netherlands. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(1):7–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baer RJ, Currier RJ, Norton ME, Flessel MC, Goldman S, Towner D, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL. Obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes in pregnancies with false-positive integrated screening results. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):603–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics, The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee. Committee Opinion number 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000423819.85283.f4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benn P, Borell A, Chiu R, Cuckle H, Dugoff L, Faas B, et al. Position statement from the aneuploidy screening committee on behalf of the board of the international society for prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(7):622–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y, Bianchi DW, Bergmann C, Borry P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1438–50. Joint European Society for Human Genetics and American Society for Human Genetics statement recommending a cautious expansion of the scope of prenatal screening to serious congenital and childhood disorders, and an active role of government in ensuring responsible innovation and use of NIPT in countries where prenatal screening is offered as a public health program CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson KL, Czerwinski JL, Hoskovec JM, Noblin SJ, Sullivan CM, Harbison A, et al. NSGC practice guideline: prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(1):4–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ACOG and SMFM. Ob-Gyns release revised recommendations on screening and testing for genetic disorders. Press Release 2016.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K, Best RG, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Lefkowitz RB, Tynan JA, Liu T, Wu Y, Mazloom AR, Almasri E, et al. Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:227. Demonstrates that in pregnancies at an increased risk for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, genomewide NIPT for fetal chromosomal abnormalities can provide high resolution, sensitive, and specific detection of a wide range of subchromosomal and whole chromosomal abnormalities that were previously only detectable by invasive karyotype analysis CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Verhoef TI, Hill M, Drury S, Mason S, Jenkins L, Morris S, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36:636–42. Evaluates the costs of offering non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing; finds that NIPD may be less expensive than invasive testing for some disorders, but may be higher for others, suggesting increased uptake of NIPD will become a major contributing factor to the cost of a genetic service for prenatal diagnosis in clinical practice CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michie M, Allyse M. Old questions, new paradigms: ethical, legal, and social complications of noninvasive prenatal testing. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2015;6(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Mozersky J. Hoping someday never comes: deferring ethical thinking about noninvasive prenatal testing. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2015;6(1):31–41. Observational study highlights the ethical continuities between NIPT and other forms of prenatal screening and testing including deferring decision-making regarding test results; the continued expansion of screening to include more women and conditions will increase the number of women who receive positive results and may be shocked and unprepared as a result CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • de Jong A, de Wert GM. Prenatal screening: an ethical agenda for the near future. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):46–55. Assesses the ethical justifications of prenatal screening, particularly as test capacities develop, with an emphasis on the extent they contribute to or undermine the stated aim of providing meaningful options for reproductive choice CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deans Z, Clarke AJ, Newson AJ. For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test ‘purely for information’. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):19–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaposy C. A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2013;23(4):299–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E, Newson A, Deans Z, Attwood S, et al. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):24–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome: pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics. 2013;20(11):1127–33.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rebouché R. Non-invasive testing, non-invasive counseling. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2015;43(2):228–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Press N, Browner CH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(7):979–89. Observational study of prenatal clinical care and the routinization of earlier maternal-fetal serum screening technology found that in some cases meaningful informed consent was eroded by clinical routines that focused on the procedural (blood draw) rather than the substantive (information-gathering) nature of the screening technology CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suter S. The routinization of prenatal testing. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2002;28(2/3):233–70.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America. Hove: Psychology Press; 1999ac .Seminal book examining the experiences of women to whom amniocentesis and other diagnostic procedures were first available details the process through with a technology initially used in high-risk pregnancy populations became a common aspect of American prenatal care Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Rothman BK. The tentative pregnancy: how amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood. New York: Norton; 1993ad .Foundational book arguing that the routine use of amniocentesis and other diagnostic technologies in pregnancy shapes how women approach pregnancy and bond (or don’t) with their fetus and child; in some cases, women may find it hard to fully accept a pregnancy until testing demonstrates the fetus is ‘healthy’ Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farrell RM, Agatisa PK, Mercer MB, Mitchum A, Coleridge M. The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(6):499–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Frints SG, de Die-Smulders CE, de Wert GM. Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(9):657–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, de Die-Smulders CE, Frints SG, de Wert GM. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(3):272–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gammon B, Allyse M. Decisional regret in women receiving high-risk or inconclusive results from non-invasive prenatal genetic screening. Prenat Diagn 2016;36(S1).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Michie M, Kraft SA, Minear MA, Ryan RR, Allyse MA. Informed decision-making about prenatal cfDNA screening: an assessment of written materials. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2016;2(3):362–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Swaney P, Hardisty E, Sayres L, Wiegand S, Vora N. Attitudes and knowledge of maternal-fetal medicine fellows regarding noninvasive prenatal testing. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(1):73–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Farrell R, Mercer M, Agatisa P, Smith M, Philipson E. It’s more than a blood test: patients’ perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014;3(2):614–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mercer MB, Agatisa PK, Farrell RM. What patients are reading about noninvasive prenatal testing: an evaluation of internet content and implications for patient-centered care. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(10):986–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kloza EM, Haddow PK, Halliday JV, O’Brien BM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Palomaki GE. Evaluation of patient education materials: the example of circulating cell free DNA testing for aneuploidy. J Genet Couns. 2015;24(2):259–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farrell RM, Agatisa PK, Mercer M, Smith MB. Online direct-to-consumer messages about non-invasive prenatal genetic testing. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 2016;1:88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Benn P, Cuckle H. Theoretical performance of non-invasive prenatal testing for chromosome imbalances using counting of cell-free DNA fragments in maternal plasma. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(8):778–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Farrell RM, Nutter B, Agatisa PK. Patient-centered prenatal counseling: aligning obstetric healthcare professionals with needs of pregnant women. Women & Health. 2015;55(3):280–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jelin AC, Anderson B, Wilkins-Haug L, Schulkin J. Obstetrician and gynecologists’ population-based screening practices. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(6):875–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Dervan AP, Deverka PA, Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Douglas MP, Phillips KA. Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening. Genet Med. 2016; doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.145. Evaluates the framework insurance payers use to make coverage decisions for cfDNA; establishes that 8 of 19 payers in the United States were covering cfDNA for average-risk pregnancies where clinical value and updated professional guidelines indicated PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    National Society of Genetic Counselors NSGC. 2014 Professional status survey: Available from: Accessed 29 Aug 2014.
  50. 50.
    Harrison TA, Doyle DL, McGowan C, Cohen L, Repass E, Pfau RB, Brown T. Billing for medical genetics and genetic counseling services: a national survey. J Genet Couns. 2010;19(1):38–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Begleiter ML, Finley BE. Positive predictive value of cell free DNA analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;211:81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chetty S, Garabedian MJ, Norton ME. Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):542–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Heger M. With rapid uptake of noninvasive prenatal screening many question its impact on abortion. Genomeweb 2016.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Daley R, Hill M, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: progress and potential. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014; doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304828.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Daley B. When baby is due, genetic counselors seen downplaying false alarms. Boston Globe 2016.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Radicioni AF, De Marco E, Gianfrilli D, Granato S, Gandini L, Isidori AM, Lenzi A. Strategies and advantages of early diagnosis in Klinefelter’s syndrome. Mol Hum Reprod. 2010;16(6):434–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    de Graaf G, Buckley F, Skotko BG. Estimates of the live births, natural losses, and elective terminations with Down syndrome in the United States. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167(4):756–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jeon KC, Chen LS, Goodson P. Decision to abort after a prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome abnormality: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2012;14(1):27–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    • Parens E, Asch A. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2003;9(1):40–7. Challenges the view that genetic testing is a self-evident good by arguing that with appropriate public support and accommodations, disabling traits need not be detrimental to leading a worthwhile life CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sandelowski M, Jones LC. Healing fictions: stories of choosing in the aftermath of the detection of fetal anomalies. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(3):353–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    • Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, Savage MS, Jackson L, Wapner RJ. Women’s experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med. 2013;15:139–45. Qualitative study finding that for microarray testing it is often difficult for parents to grasp the meaning of results, and some results were very uncertain; extensive pretest and posttest counseling and educational tools required as the numbers of women undergoing such testing increase CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sandelowski M, Barroso J. The travesty of choosing after positive prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 2005;34(3):307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Helm DT, Miranda S, Chedd NA. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: mothers’ reflections on supports needed from diagnosis to birth. Ment Retard. 1998;36(1):55–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Skotko BG. Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):670–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nelson Goff BS, Springer N, Foote LC, Frantz C, Peak M, Tracy C, et al. Receiving the initial Down syndrome diagnosis: a comparison of prenatal and postnatal parent group experiences. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2013;51(6):446–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Saul RA, Meredith SH. Beyond the genetic diagnosis: providing parents what they want to know. Pediatr Rev. 2016;37(7):269–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: perspectives from mothers and fathers. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(10):2335–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(10):2360–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. Having a brother or sister with Down syndrome: perspectives from siblings. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(10):2348–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Alderson P. Prenatal screening, ethics and Down’s syndrome: a literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2001;8(4):360–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bittles AH, Glasson EJ. Clinical, social, and ethical implications of changing life expectancy in Down syndrome. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2004;46(4):282–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Glasson EJ, Jacques A, Wong K, Bourke J, Leonard H. Improved survival in Down syndrome over the last 60 years and the impact of perinatal factors in recent decades. J Pediatr. 2016;169:214–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Patterson AR, Robinson LD, Naftalis EZ, Haley BB, Tomlinson GE. Custodianship of genetic information: clinical challenges and professional responsibility. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(9):2100–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kellogg G, Slattery L, Hudgins L, Ormond K. Attitudes of mothers of children with Down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:805–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Benn P, Cuckle H, Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(1):15–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hall A, Bostanci A, Wright CF. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA technology: applications and implications. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(4):246–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kaplan D. Prenatal screening and its impact on persons with disabilities. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1993;8(Suppl. 1):64–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shakespeare TW. Choices, reasons and feelings: prenatal diagnosis as disability dilemma. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne De Recherche Sur Le Handicap. 2011;5(1):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hickerton CL, Aitken M, Hodgson J, Delatycki MB. “Did you find that out in time?”: new life trajectories of parents who choose to continue a pregnancy where a genetic disorder is diagnosed or likely. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(2):373–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    • Steinbach RJ, Allyse M, Michie M, Liu EY, Cho MK. This lifetime commitment: public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(2):363–74. Survey study exploring the variety of views expressed about living with and raising a child with disabilities; most respondents supported the availability of genetic testing despite a range of both positive and negative views of living with disability CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    van Schendel RV, Kater-Kuipers A, van Vliet-Lachotzki EH, Dondorp WJ, Cornel MC, Henneman L. What do parents of children with Down syndrome think about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)? J Genet Couns. 2016; doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-0012-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Raz A. “Important to test, important to support”: attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(9):1857–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kuppermann M, Nakagawa S, Cohen SR, Dominguez-Pareto I, Shaffer BL, Holloway SD. Attitudes toward prenatal testing and pregnancy termination among a diverse population of parents of children with intellectual disabilities. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(13):1251–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sayres LC, Allyse M, Goodspeed TA, Cho MK. Demographic and experiential correlates of public attitudes towards cell-free fetal DNA screening. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:957–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Minear M, Alessi S, Michie M, Allyse M, Chandrasakharan S. Where are we now with non-invasive prenatal testing?: a review of current and emerging ethical, legal, and social issues. Annu Rev Gen Genomics 2015; In Press.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Flessel M, Goldman S. California prenatal screening program to include noninvasive testing. 2013;
  87. 87.
    Karow J. NIPT continues to take off in 2013 as indications, insurance coverage grow. GenomeWeb 2014Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Karow J. NIPT insurance coverage for all risk groups expected to pick up after new guidelines, cost studies. Genomeweb 2015.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Graf MD, Needham DF, Teed N, Brown T. Genetic testing insurance coverage trends: a review of publicly available policies from the largest US payers. Personalized Medicine. 2013;10(3):235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Prince AE. Prevention for those who can pay: insurance reimbursement of genetic-based preventive interventions in the liminal state between health and disease. J Law Biosci. 2015;2(2):365–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    • Chitty L, Cameron L, Daley D, Fisher J, Hill M, Jenkins L, et al. RAPID non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) evaluation study: a report for the UK national screening committee. 2015. Results of this study support the addition of NIPT as a contingent test in the United Kingdom’s National Health Services Down’s syndrome screening pathway . Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Murdoch B, Ravitsky V, Ogbogu U, Ali-Khan S, Bertier G, Birko S, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing and the unveiling of an impaired translation process. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;39:10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Anderson JM, Rodney P, Reimer-Kirkham S, Browne AJ, Khan KB, Lynam MJ. Inequities in health and healthcare viewed through the ethical lens of critical social justice: contextual knowledge for the global priorities ahead. Adv Nurs Sci. 2009;32(4):282–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Daniels N. Justice, health, and healthcare. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(2):2–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bryant AS, Worjoloh A, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):335–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Smith CE, Fullerton SM, Dookeran KA, Hampel H, Tin A, Maruthur NM, et al. Using genetic technologies to reduce, rather than widen, health disparities. Health Aff. 2016;35(8):1367–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Markens S. ‘I’m not sure if they speak to everyone about this option’: analyzing disparate access to and use of genetic health services in the US from the perspective of genetic counselors. Critical Public Health. 2016;16:1–14.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    • Bryant AS, Worjoloh A, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):335–43. Examines the variety of factors that lead to disparate health outcomes in obstetric care based on racial and ethnic differences and suggests root causes and potential interventions to improve outcomes CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    • Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(6):521–31. Provides an overview of the patent and intellectual property claims at issue in the cfDNA market CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    UPDATE: Appeals court upholds invalidity of sequenom patent | genomeweb; Available from: Accessed 27 Oct 2016.
  101. 101.
    FDA to finalize LDT guidance amid uncertainty on number of genetic tests impacted | genomeweb; Available from: Accessed 28 Oct 2016.
  102. 102.
    Collins L, Ewing F, Fernandes, JS, Lin J, Wu LX. Laboratory developed tests emerging in FDA Regulation. The National Law Review 2016. Available at: Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
  103. 103.
    Allyse M, Sayres C, King S, Norton E, Cho K. Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(11):3123–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Abortion bans in cases of sex or race selection or genetic anomaly | Guttmacher Institute: Available from: Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
  105. 105.
    Bartlett LA, Berg CJ, Shulman HB, Zane SB, Green CA, Whitehead S, Atrash HK. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):729–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kelly N. Indiana journal gazette; Available from: Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
  107. 107.
    Pergament D, Ilijic K. The legal past, present and future of prenatal genetic testing: professional liability and other legal challenges affecting patient access to services. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014;3(4):1437–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Gammon BL, Kraft SA, Michie M, Allyse M. I think we’ve got too many tests!: prenatal providers reflections on ethical and clinical challenges in the practice integration of cell-free DNA screening. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2016;2(3):334–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Marchant GE, Lindor RA. Personalized medicine and genetic malpractice. Genet Med. 2013;15(12):921–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Prenatal assessment of genomes and exomes (PAGE) | Sanger institute; Available from: Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
  111. 111.
    Chiu RW. Hunting for the signatures of cancer by plasma DNA sequencing. Pathology. 2016;48:S30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hudecova I, Chiu RW. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of thalassemias using maternal plasma cell free DNA. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B. March of dimes: global report on birth defects, the hidden toll of dying and disabled children. 2005.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Jain CV, Kadam L, van Dijk M, Kohan-Ghadr H-R, Kilburn BA, Hartman C, et al. Fetal genome profiling at 5 weeks of gestation after noninvasive isolation of trophoblast cells from the endocervical canal. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(363):363re4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bartesaghi R, Haydar TF, Delabar JM, Dierssen M, Martínez-Cué C, Bianchi DW. New perspectives for the rescue of cognitive disability in Down syndrome. J Neurosci. 2015;35(41):13843–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, Chandrasekharan S. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2015;7:113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Boardman FK. The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: the experiences of families living with genetic disease. Soc Sci Med. 2014;107:18–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kittay EF, Kittay L. On the expressivity and ethics of selective abortion for disability: conversations with my son. Prenatal testing and disability rights 2000:165–95.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Shakespeare T. Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society. 1998;13(5):665–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Steinbach RJ, Allyse M, Michie M, Liu EY, Cho MK. “This lifetime commitment”: public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2015; 170(2).Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Blumenshine P, Egerter S, Barclay CJ, Cubbin C, Braveman PA. Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39(3):263–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    MacDorman MF. Race and ethnic disparities in fetal mortality, preterm birth, and infant mortality in the United States: an overview. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35(4):200–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Social PolicyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of Nursing, Institute for Health and AgingUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Biomedical EthicsMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations